[ SHOUL D
Y OU OR S H OUL DN ’ T YO U ]
The Copyright Clearance Center Blanket License:
Is it Right for Your Library?
1
[ ABOUT
US]
T H E VA NTAGE P O IN T S E R IE S F R O M EBSCO IN FORMATION SERVICES ®
addresses important issues in the serials information arena and provides unique,
knowledgeable perspectives on these issues. As a leading information services provider,
we, at EBSCO, believe the perspectives provided can clarify ways in which these issues
might affect your library or organization.
This Vantage Point issue contains two presentations made by library professionals at the
EBSCO Executive Seminar, held January 13, 2008, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, during
the 2008 Midwinter Meeting of the American Library Association. For research library
directors, the EBSCO Executive Seminar event is held annually and focuses on issues
shaping the future of research libraries.
[ CONTENTS]
Pennsylvania State University: Our Evaluation of the Copyright Clearance Center Blanket License
a presentation by
NAN C Y L. E AT O N , DE AN O F UN IV E R S IT Y L IBRARIES AN D SCH OL ARLY COMMUN ICATION
P ENNSY LVA NI A S TAT E UN IV E R S IT Y
Meet Us at the Margins: Reasons to Consider the Copyright Clearance Center Annual Copyright License
a presentation by
F R E D M . H E AT H, V ICE P R O V O S T AN D DI RECTOR
UN I VE R SI T Y O F T E X AS AT AUS T IN L IB R ARIES
1
(This page intentionally blank.)
Pennsylvania State University: Our Evaluation of the
Copyright Clearance Center Blanket License
NANCY L. EATON, Dean of University Libraries and Scholarly Communication, Pennsylvania State University
I
want to stress that this presentation is about the process
by which Pennsylvania State (Penn State) University
evaluated the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) Blanket
License — not the particular conclusions that we came to,
but how we proceeded and the various perspectives of
those working in a very large research institution.
We actually addressed this issue in May 2006, when the CCC
executives visited Penn State to present their new product, the
“Annual Academic Copyright License.” At the time, the CCC
was visiting a number of institutions seeking charter members
who could partner with them in the further development and
rollout of their product. So, we were probably within the first 12
institutions that they talked to before it was actually rolled out
as a final product.
The academic product was modeled on one that the CCC had
developed for the corporate sector that, according to CCC
executives, had been very successful in streamlining copyright
clearance for corporations. The CCC was marketing the license
as a way of streamlining approvals for copyright and simplifying
workflow for colleges and universities. Those were the two things
they stressed the most. They were using language, however, in
their verbal presentations, like “one-stop shopping,” and the title
itself, “a blanket license,” certainly implies fairly broad coverage.
The issue for us was to determine to what degree it really provided
encompassing coverage in a way that would be helpful to us.
Thirteen members were asked to attend the presentation and, to
my amazement, all of them did. This was significant, because it was
important to us to have all of the players at the table to hear the
same thing — myself, of course, and the director of the Penn State
Bookstore, who does the course packs for the University; the senior
coordinator for copyright clearance (which is actually a separate
part of the University that does copyright clearance for faculty when
it is outside the Library’s purview); four people from the library: the
electronic resources and copyright librarian, the coordinator for
interlibrary loan, the supervisor for electronic reserves, and the head
of access services. There was also my director of administrative
services who handles the financial planning for the Library.
In addition, there was the director of the Penn State University
Press; the senior director for teaching and learning with
technology, who is the person in University computing that
oversees the course management system for the University; the
assistant vice president for research and technology transfer,
who is also the director of intellectual property for the University;
and the associate vice president for outreach and extension,
who runs our international online world campus. And finally, our
legal counsel. All of us attended the CCC presentation together
so that we would hear the same information and could then
evaluate it collectively.
Sanford (Sandy) Thatcher, director of the Penn State University
Press, who by then was reporting to me, was a member of the
CCC board of directors which made it particularly interesting.
He believed very much in this product, in that it would help
institutions simplify copyright clearance, so he asked us to at
least consider it. Rather than Sandy going around the University
talking to different people and each hearing different things, he
and I agreed that I would call together a variety of individuals
from across the University who would either be logical users of
the license or who would have administrative or legal opinions
about its appropriateness for the University.
3
About Pennsylvania State
University
Before continuing, I will provide a brief description of Pennsylvania
State University and the University libraries, as we did for the CCC
executives who visited us, since that was key to our evaluation
of the CCC Blanket License. We’re probably as complicated as
any institution can be in higher education. Penn State is legally
one University, even though we have 24 campuses. We are one
University, with one president, one provost, one board of trustees,
one library dean, and one academic computing chief information
officer. We have 37 libraries among 24 campuses across the
entire Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, including one here in
Philadelphia. The composition of our faculty and students is almost
7,000 faculty and 84,000 students. We are a very decentralized,
very distributed University and probably the only one like this that
is legally an institution.
While the University libraries all report to me, as does the Penn State
University Press, some of them have a great deal of autonomy, such
as law and medicine. Similarly, while the University supports the
ANGEL® course management system, it is not the only one used.
The law and medical schools, for instance, use different course
management systems.
Faculty members have a great deal of autonomy in how they
teach. Even use of the CCC is a shared responsibility between
the University libraries and the senior coordinator for copyright
clearance. The distributed, decentralized nature of the University
was a critical factor in the evaluation of the CCC Blanket License,
as Penn State is extremely complex. The CCC representatives
were quite surprised by this level of complexity. After the CCC
presentation, the Penn State participants remained together to
critique what we had heard. Our analysis was as follows:
Analysis
Coverage: In spite of the implication that this would provide
assurances to faculty that going through the CCC site would
ensure compliance with copyright, coverage is limited. At that
time, in May 2006, it covered only 200 publishers. It covers books,
journals, newspapers, trade publications and text books, but it
does not include media, interlibrary loan or document delivery
transactions. It is for academic use only, including course packs,
classroom handouts, library reserves and electronic course
content, but it does not include non-educational uses such
as promotional or advertising uses or use in publications. It is
4
definitely not an all-inclusive license, in spite of it being called
a “blanket license.” This would not be easy for faculty or staff
to understand, as they are led to believe by the promotional
material, or could easily interpret, that if they go through the CCC
license, they are complying with copyright.
Fair Use and Licensed Content: Under fair use, we already have
rights to use much of this material for academic purposes, and
much is already licensed by the Libraries directly from publishers.
We spend more than $7 million per year on licensed electronic
content, both books and journals. If faculty were to use the CCC
site directly without anyone filtering these requests, we would pay
twice as much (or more, depending on the number of requests)
for many of these materials.
At present, the Libraries take responsibility for e-reserve and
interlibrary loan requests to search and eliminate requests for
materials that are already licensed or fall under fair use. We
encourage faculty to come through us for materials in their online
courses, as we have designed library access into the course
management system, including direct links to the electronic
resources. For the remainder of requests, under the current
system of pay-per-use, our statistics indicate that the CCC denies
or indicates that the request is unavailable for almost 50 percent
of our requests, which we then pursue ourselves. The license
would not provide any additional coverage for this material.
Liability: Legal counsel expressed the opinion that we would
increase our liability rather than reduce liability, since faculty were
likely to believe that more was covered by the license than was
actually the case and would be, therefore, more likely to make
mistakes in applying copyright law to their teaching and research.
Workflow: The CCC argues that the license would save work for
the Libraries. Yet, after hearing our concerns, it suggested that
the Libraries monitor and review the requests by faculty using
the course management system(s) and to direct all such requests
through the Libraries’ interlibrary loan operation and our e-reserve
operation, which would increase our workload, not reduce it.
After discussion, we came to the following conclusions:
• The reporting requirements were not acceptable to Penn
State. The headcount basis for the establishing costs was not
acceptable to Penn State.
• Library workloads would, in fact, increase rather than decrease.
• Liability could be greater rather than less.
• Our complex, decentralized system does not lend itself to
a CCC centralized license and one centralized payment by
the University.
• The mix of materials used by Penn State as a heavily researchoriented University went far beyond the coverage of the CCC
license.
Pricing: Pricing is per student, based on the University’s Carnegie
classification and full-time employee count. This would presumably
be very large for Penn State with 84,000 students. On principle, we
do not agree to headcount pricing for any product and negotiate
for cost based on usage. The CCC literature did list a University
System / multisite discount, though we were never provided a
dollar quote for such an option. Typically this is consortial pricing,
and, legally, we are not a consortium.
Reporting: The description of the license included a requirement
to report, in one academic term per year, the following: copies of
course syllabi, course packs or class handouts; a listing of content
used in digital forms by print services and copy shops; and
downloads of content posted on course management systems
and/or e-reserves.
First, our systems do not presently provide such information.
Second, on principle, we would not provide such information to
an outside party. The staff of the Libraries, the senior coordinator
for copyright clearance, and our senior director from information
technology services, who runs the course management system,
all agreed that this was not desirable.
Centralized Payment: The license requires that the University pay
centrally, yet Penn State’s decentralized budget system would
make that very difficult. It would require somebody (probably
the Libraries) to try to prorate usage and bill the various units of
the University for their portion of the CCC license. Again, that
would add to workload, not decrease it, assuming it could even
be done.
Conclusions
Summary
Based on that analysis in 2006, Penn State chose not to continue
licensing discussions with the CCC. Also, by the end of that
meeting, the CCC executives acknowledged that Penn State was
too complicated to be a potential development partner. I am told
that the CCC has revised some aspects of the blanket license
since that time, though I am not familiar with those changes. But
the CCC has never come back to us to ask us to reconsider our
licensing decision.
It is possible that such a blanket license would benefit smaller, more
centralized institutions with more predictable usage from a core set
of publishers, or units within a larger university that might benefit
from such a license for a particular discipline. Thus, my purpose
in presenting our experience is not to condemn the CCC blanket
license per se, but rather to suggest the kinds of questions that you
should ask as you evaluate the potential benefits of the program.
Penn State continues to use the pay-per-use services of the CCC
as a useful service.
5
(This page intentionally blank.)
Meet Us at the Margins: Reasons to Consider the Copyright
Clearance Center Annual Copyright License
FRED M. HEATH, Vice Provost and Direc tor, University of Texas at Austin Libraries
T
he topic that brings us together tonight is not a
happy one. In emulation of their colleagues in the
music industry, the Association of American
Publishers (AAP), their president and their copyright
counsel have subjected America’s libraries to a
wearying six-year siege of threatened litigation, impeded workflows,
protracted contractual negotiations and corporate wrong think.
Litigation is not what publishers do best; they have even allowed
their litigants to target the very faculty who provide them with the
free content that fills their balance sheet. Something must be done
to extricate the parties from this contretemps, or higher education
and publishing are both at risk.
upon the continuing patronage of the research library community.
Can we get off this treadmill? Is there not something we can do to
mitigate this adversarial relationship between best customers and
some of their suppliers?
To this point, at my Libraries we have actually done little to
operationalize our inclinations to sit down and talk. But it is probably
useful to clear the air and explain why I think it a good idea to do so.
If tonight’s session will do anything to advance the understanding
between the respective parties, then it will have been time well
spent. Let me spend a few minutes to retrace the thought process,
to review the tenets that undergird this point of view.
When analyzing the landscape, I began to believe that perhaps
the wisest course of action was to engage AAP through its proxy,
the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC), to end some of these
inefficiencies, correct some of the workflow absurdities that sap our
efficiency and return to our priorities of teaching and learning.
So, I informed the executive director of the Association of Research
Libraries (ARL), Duane Webster, that I was inclined to sit down
with the publishing community and begin discussions about the
Annual Copyright License. I was concerned that my colleagues
atop the barricades — who saw AAP’s strategy of litigation as
a full-scale assault upon fair use — would view negatively the
suggestion that large research libraries could negotiate with the
publishing community.
I recognize that many librarians are wary of blanket licenses.
Thoughtful people have spoken articulately of their concerns that
colleges will pay for copyright licenses instead of asserting their
rights under fair-use doctrine.1
I also believe that AAP counsel, in its allegations against our
colleagues, does not represent the views of most of our friends in
the publishing industry. For the most part, the great libraries that
are represented by the people in this room were built through
decades-long relationships between librarians and publishers.
Publishers, I believe, recognize the essential partnership between
themselves and libraries — a perception especially acute among
the many publishers whose balance sheet is totally dependent
7
The Copyright Clearance
Center License
The Copyright Clearance Center is a tool of the publishing
community, managing licenses that permit the reuse of published
material. Over the summer of 2007, the CCC announced the
availability of an Annual Copyright License for colleges. Previously
available to commercial clients, the new license offers a blanket
fee-for-use of publisher content instead of requiring colleges to
secure rights to content on a case-by-case, transactional basis.2
We read that the foray into the higher education market by the
CCC had some vetting at Middlebury College, and we were
pleased with that. We understood that the CCC hoped to contract
with 10 to 25 universities in the first year, and we felt, reasonably,
that we could perhaps be one of them. To be sure, the business
plan has given us pause, and if we proceed we will have to see what
negotiation room there is when we get to the table. According to
CCC officials, the publishing community anticipates a minimum of
$1 per student, with an average fee that could run as high as $10
per full-time employee. We don’t accept that pricing structure with
an emergent product.
As a large research library already buying a huge proportion of
the full gamut of offerings of the publishing community, we see
ourselves as an entirely different potential client to the CCC than
some narrowly niched commercial partner or a small liberal arts
institution. We expect that if we enter into negotiations, these will
be stern, protracted and, in the end, entirely reasonable with rates
at the very lowest end of the spectrum.
Strengths of the
New Approach
We recognize the current annual license comes with limitations.
While many publishers, including John Wiley, New York Times
and Oxford University Press, are already aboard, other publishers
have not yet put their works under license. CCC’s historical
relations with the publishing community led one of its officials to
suggest that eventually research libraries will meet 80 percent of
their needs through the license.3 That data point was entered into
our calculations.
8
We anticipate that the annual license may allow us to reduce our
transactional costs. Instead of deciding on a case-by-case basis
on whether to seek permissions, we will be able to take a “click
and go” approach to securing reuse rights. According to initial
information, if an article or book is available under the license,
then it can be reused for campus teaching and learning purposes
for the duration of the license. Our current workflow requires that
for each transaction into electronic reserves, we first adjudicate
“fair use” eligibility, an act that has a cost, and then where the
article fails the test we must individually acquire the rights for the
use of copyrighted content. That act also has a cost.
Let me be clear. The conceivable transactions that fall outside
direct access to our nine million print volumes and tens of
millions of licensed articles represent a small proportion of the
total number of value-added knowledge transactions we offer
our community during the course of a year. Nevertheless, these
e-reserves transactions are something we can engineer away;
they are costs we can control.4
Publishers are making the wrong assumption about the fiscal
resources that are being lost through course management systems
(CMS), course packs and electronic reserves.
For most of the publishing community the true ten-horned beast
of the apocalypse is not the librarian, nor the library. Rather, the
beasts are the faculty, and the new tool, the course management
system, that faculty employs to promote teaching and learning.
This new digital campus tool, one university press director
alleges, has laid waste to the textbook and course pack markets
that constituted significant revenue streams for beleaguered
publishers.5
I believe that she is wrong, and that she is right. What do I mean?
Permit me to use my own Libraries as an example. Our collections
have grown tremendously over the past 50 years, and as they
have grown, they have evolved. From the 1960s until today, the
University of Texas (UT) has invested almost three-quarters of a
billion dollars in its libraries. Over those decades we have built
strong collections. In many instances, we have repurchased
electronic backfiles of journals, books and other resources
previously purchased in print form from the same publishers,
in order that we could make available to our community a vast
universe of resources to their desktops, independent of time and
place constraints.
So, from that perspective, she is wrong because the marketplace
has changed. Libraries are only deploying digital assets as
allowed under contract. The investment in licensing packages
at ARL research universities is such that faculty have access to a
mushrooming universe of digital documents with stable uniform
resource locators (URLs) that make it increasingly unnecessary
to post non-permissioned, non-fair use, or unlicensed materials
to the course management system. We paid for much of that
material twice in order to have that freedom.
She is right because the textbook market is eroding and course
management software is the culprit. It is an easy milieu within
which faculty can work, and it is rapidly displacing textbooks,
traditional printed course packs as well as their digital competitor,
library electronic reserves. The director of the bookstore at the
University of North Carolina (UNC) recently reported a four-year
decline in the number of courses using course packs from 539
packs to 380. Similarly, UNC Libraries recorded a 20 percent
decline in the number of classes using e-reserves over a three-year
period, with the number of pages viewed dropping 54 percent
over a slightly longer interval.6 And in the aftermath of AAP’s tiff
with Cornell University and the issuance of guidelines there, a 70
percent decline in e-reserves use has occurred.7
I observed earlier that publishers for now are emulating their
corporate counterparts in the music industry, threatening lawsuits
in an effort to shore up a deteriorating marketplace. The battle
began at the University of California, San Diego, in 2003, when
attorneys for the Association of American Publishers (AAP)
objected to the Library’s practice of electronic reserves.8
Then, in March 2006, AAP attorneys contacted Cornell University
and again threatened litigation unless perceived violations of
electronic reserves were corrected. In response, Cornell University
issued guidelines in September 2006 on how to place materials on
electronic reserve.9
Then in April 2007, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, the attorneys
representing the AAP, struck again posting letters to several of
our colleagues. With the passage of time since the first assault,
the increasingly sophisticated course management systems and
faculty practices in using them were the focus of the ire. But
according to our colleagues who received these letters, electronic
reserves still came in for their share of vitriol. And the tiresome
threat of litigation lingers. Publishers are attempting to stay the
tide, and by their reactions, librarians may be persuading them it
is possible.
Is it possible librarians wish to preserve this rapidly obsolescing
system? Rather than perpetuate the current practices and prolong
the harangue and rhetoric, can’t we move in new directions?
I believe that we should recognize that library-administered
electronic reserves, like its print course pack counterpart, may
be an anachronistic concept. We should consider that teaching
and learning could be more cost effectively served if the
librarians took on other roles and ceded that “reserve reading”
space to the course management systems. I don’t suggest this
be done everywhere, but I believe it could be done in large
research libraries.
As educators, we want a system that saves the faculty member
time so more energy can be expended on teaching, not on
preparation. It is not in faculty interest to sustain something so
inefficient as either the course pack or library e-reserves. If we
again use the University of North Carolina as an exemplar for ARL
libraries, there was a “steady linear increase” in the number of
Blackboard course sections from fewer than 100 in the year 2000,
to more than 5,000 in 2006. Faculty posted resources to the
content area in more than 93 percent of the cases far more
frequently than they used the grade book feature. Not surprisingly,
student behavior was to visit the site briefly and download
materials for convenient use.10
9
In the information age, faculty expects transparent systems that
allow them to teach effectively. For the current system to work,
faculty must know what materials can freely be put online and
which materials require a royalty fee or pass a fair use assessment
before posting. The best system would be one that:
•
•
•
•
allows the faculty member to freely post materials that pass
a simple test.
permits the faculty to defer to others the tasks of fair use
adjudication or royalty payment on items that do not pass
the test.
allows students to freely download all materials on the course
management site.
calms publisher fears about systemic failings that impact
their revenue flow.
In a moment, I will close with a quick overview of a system I believe
could work. But before I do, I want to persuade you of this — a
copyright-compliant university course management system will
not resolve the marketplace challenges that university-oriented
publishing is facing. Significant tributaries to the publishing
revenue stream, textbooks and course packs, are drying up. The
industry, like libraries, must find some of their answers of their
own on the cost side. So far it appears publishers have been
reluctant to explore the cost side. A rational, mutually beneficial
solution is possible.
Some years ago now, I was speaking with Robert Signorelli,
an Anheuser Busch executive, and our small talk turned to
the relative merits of boutique breweries and their impact on
his marketplace, beer. Mr. Signorelli observed that, from his
perspective, the larger breweries offered a superior product
but that Anheuser Busch had reason to be concerned with the
1 percent or 2 percent of market share such small producers
represented. There is a limit to the size of the beer-consuming
market, he observed, and the fortunes of his Company have
been managed by careful attention to the cost side. Anheuser
Busch had already made its cans as thin as the carbonated
content would allow, and transportation routes had been fully
rationalized. Therefore, his Company would attempt to move
into that small niche market of boutique breweries by allowing
its regional brewmeisters to develop signature beers of their
own creation, offering those to the beer-drinking public.
I would suggest to the publishing community that the same
situation prevails among research universities. We are dealing
10
with a revenue situation at the margins. Let’s manage costs. Help
us improve our workflows by streamlining our interlibrary loan
processes, by simplifying the contractual language of licensing,
by aggregating our financial transactions with your community
and working together, with us, instead of posturing litigation for
six long years running. Look internally at your own workflows
and measure the drag of publishing in dual formats; do what
you can to restore civility to the marketplace. And if we all do
that, perhaps we, too, will discover that there is 1 percent or 2
percent of library operating costs that can be directed toward
Annual Copyright Licenses or new acquisitions. We enjoy new
efficiencies; you enjoy new revenues.
Course Management Systems
as the Solution
It should be rather obvious that I believe the future to lie in course
management systems, the bête noire of the publishing industry.
By policy it should be possible to restrict downloads from course
management systems to stable URLs within the licensed university
domain or public domain resources.
• If the faculty member can point to the item, it can be linked
to the course management system and downloaded at will
by students. The item can be (1) licensed material from the
library’s resources; (2) an item within the library’s institutional
repository; or (3) an item located on the open Web.
• If an item cannot be “pointed to,” the faculty member will
forward the request to a trained agent of the university who
will determine if the item (1) is available from a publisher
participating in the Annual CCC Copyright License; (2) is fair
use; or (3) requires a royalty transaction with the CCC. In
all three cases, the item can subsequently be made digitally
available on the CMS.
We believe the transaction load is sustainable and can be further
reduced over time by working with faculty to select licensed, stable
URLs in lieu of those requiring the extra workflow of adjudication.
Permit me again to use a library example with which I am familiar.
At the University of Texas Libraries, 400 people participate annually
in a $40 million effort to advance teaching and learning at the
University. Reserve transactions are an important, but relatively
insignificant, part of well over a billion information transactions.
Visits to UT library Web sites
Downloads licensed/public
domain resources
1,000,000,000
10,000,000
Library physical visits
3,000,000
Book circulations
1,300,000
Reserves transactions
740,000
All these transactions have calculable costs, but only with one of
these do we as managers have an interest in making go away — the
740,000 reserves transactions. Our initial samplings suggest that
approximately one-half of the transactions will go away when
moved into the electronic course management system, for they
already exist within our licensed resources and we can simply point
to them. Of the remaining 370,000 we expect a significant number
to fall under the umbrella of the Annual Copyright License, which,
when fully operational, should satisfy 300,000 of those according to
CCC officials.
That leaves us with 70,000 items that are going to require some
additional attention, or one-half of 1 percent of the total transactions
funded by the University of Texas in support of teaching, learning
and research. We can subject those to exacting scrutiny. Some of
those 70,000 will be found to be fair use; some will be acquired by
the University libraries; some will require royalty payments; and some
will be replaced by items from the stable URL universe. Over time
the number should dwindle to an idiosyncratic few. A campus agent
would manage the Annual Copyright License and the transactional
copyright permissions building block — perhaps the Copy Center
with an assist from the Libraries.
This may be one way out of our adversarial imbroglio. In the summer
of 2006, at the Association of American University Presses meeting
in New Orleans, Sanford Thatcher, director of Penn State University
Press, counseled his community to … educate rather than litigate.
... “We need to take more active steps in educating faculty about
their own copyright self-interest,” he said. “I think we should go
further and take the faculty member out of the dynamic. The Annual
Copyright License may offer us all a step in that direction.”11
As a library manager, I have only one primary mission: the
advancement of teaching, learning and research. I want no drag or
friction to impede our Libraries as we work toward that goal. I want
our behavior to be so unassailably transparent that no publisher
would have cause to consider pulling any Library I should manage
into court as a potential solution to its marketplace woes. But if the
propensity to litigate continues, and should my Libraries ever be
targeted, I would want the facts so meticulously aligned that my
counsel would welcome the case. I want there to be no doubt as
to the outcome.
Now, let’s sit down with the CCC and determine just what utility this
nascent license may have.
11
Footnotes
1Brock Read, “Copyright Center Will Let Colleges Pay Blanket Fees to Reuse Print Material,” Chronicle of Higher Education
29 Jun. 2007.
2Brock Read, “Copyright Center Will Let Colleges Pay Blanket Fees to Reuse Print Material,” Chronicle of Higher Education
29 Jun. 2007.
3Brock Read, “Copyright Center Will Let Colleges Pay Blanket Fees to Reuse Print Material,” Chronicle of Higher Education
29 Jun. 2007.
4Brock Read, “Copyright Center Will Let Colleges Pay Blanket Fees to Reuse Print Material,” Chronicle of Higher Education
29 Jun. 2007.
5Kate Douglas Torrey, “Downloads, Copyright, and the Moral Responsibility of Universities,” Chronicle of Higher Education
15 Jun. 2007.
6Kate Douglas Torrey, “Downloads, Copyright, and the Moral Responsibility of Universities,” Chronicle of Higher Education
15 Jun. 2007.
7Kate Douglas Torrey, “Downloads, Copyright, and the Moral Responsibility of Universities,” Chronicle of Higher Education
15 Jun. 2007.
8Scott Carlson, “Legal Battle Brews Over Availability of Texts on Online Reserve at U. of California Library,” Chronicle of
Higher Education 22 Apr. 2005.
9
Jeffrey R. Young, “Cornell U. Creates Guidelines for E-Reserves,” Chronicle of Higher Education 29 Sept. 2006.
10Kate Douglas Torrey, “Downloads, Copyright, and the Moral Responsibility of Universities,” Chronicle of Higher Education
15 Jun. 2007.
11Jennifer Howard, “Navigating the Big Uneasy: Digital angst and opportunities dominate the annual meeting of university
presses in New Orleans,” Chronicle of Higher Education 30 Jun. 2006.
EBSCO SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES
DIVISION HEADQUARTERS –
Birmingham, AL USA
Allen Powell
President
(205) 991-6600
Fax (205) 995-1518
Regional Offices
UNITED STATES
NEW ENGLAND/MID-ATLANTIC
Tinton Falls, NJ
CT, DC, DE, MA, MD, ME, So. NJ, S.E.
PA, NH, RI, VT
Roy Reinalda, General Manager
(732) 542-8600/(800) 526-2337
Fax (732) 544-9777
E-mail: ebscorb@ebsco.com
NEW YORK/TRI-STATE AREA –
Tenafly, NJ
NY, No. NJ, PA (except the S.E.
section)
Carl Teresa, General Manager
(201) 569-2500/(800) 753-2726
Fax (201) 569-0586
E-mail: esstn@ebsco.com
SOUTHEAST – Birmingham, AL
AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, SC,
TN, VA, VI, WV
Ree Sherer, General Manager
(205) 991-1211/(800) 633-4604
Fax (205) 995-1613
MIDWEST – Cary, IL
IL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, OH, WI
Lee Dabkey, General Manager
(847) 639-2899/(800) 323-6501
Fax (847) 639-1129
E-mail: ldabkey@ebsco.com
MOUNTAIN/CENTRAL –
Westminster, CO
CO, KS, MT, ND, NE, OK, SD, TX,
UT, WY
Stan Terry, General Manager
(303) 237-1753/(800) 727-1077
Fax (303) 237-1752
E-mail: essden@ebsco.com
WEST/PACIFIC ISLANDS –
Los Angeles, CA
AK, AZ, CA, HI, ID, NM, NV, OR, WA,
U.S. Pacific Islands
Dave Kerin, General Manager
(310) 322-5000/(800) 683-2726
Fax (310) 322-2558
E-mail: essla@ebsco.com
U.S. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT –
Westminster, CO
Stan Terry, General Manager
(303) 237-1753/(800) 727-1077
Fax (303) 237-1752
E-mail: essden@ebsco.com
WALPOLE, MA
Lois Bacon
Publisher Services Manager
(508) 850-7580/(800) 999-3594
Fax: (508) 850-7583
E-mail: lbacon@ebsco.com
EBSCO PUBLISHING
DIVISION HEADQUARTERS –
Ipswich, MA USA
Tim Collins
President
(978) 356-6500/(800) 653-2726
Fax (978) 356-6565
E-mail: ep@ebscohost.com
CANADA
ALL EXCEPT QUEBEC
Scarborough, Ontario
EBSCO Canada Ltd.
John Lumsden, General Manager
(416) 297-8282/(800) 387-5241
Fax (416) 297-4848
E-mail: lmacduff@ebsco.com
QUEBEC – St. Lambert
EBSCO Canada Ltée
Christianne Potvin, Office Manager
(450) 672-5878
Ligne directe pour Quebec:
(800) 361-7322
Fax (450) 672-1232
E-mail: cpotvin@ebsco.com
EUROPE
THE NETHERLANDS/FLEMISHSPEAKING BELGIUM –
Aalsmeer, The Netherlands
Luc Prudhon, General Manager
31-297-386-386
Fax 31-297-386-387
E-mail: mailnl@ebsco.com
ITALY – Torino
EBSCO Italia S.R.L.
Marco Cassi, General Manager
39-011-28 76 811
Fax 39-011-248-2916
E-mail: turin@ebsco.com
GERMANY/AUSTRIA/GERMANSPEAKING SWITZERLAND/
EASTERN EUROPE –
Berlin
EBSCO Information Services GmbH
Cary Bruce, General Manager
49 30 34005-258
Fax 49 30 34005-290
E-mail: salesberlin@ebsco.com
SPAIN/PORTUGAL – Madrid
Federico Cifuentes
General Manager
34-91-490 24 80
Fax 34-91-490 23 25
E-mail: mailesp@ebsco.com (Spain)
mailpt@ebsco.com (Portugal)
UNITED KINGDOM/IRELAND/
NORDIC COUNTRIES –
New Barnet, England
Ian Middleton, General Manager
44-20-8447-4200
Fax 44-20-8440-2205
E-mail: mailuk@ebsco.com
ALGERIA – Algiers
Luc Prudhon, General Manager
+213 (0)21 68 11 49
E-mail: algerie@fr.ebsco.com
FRANCE/FRENCH-SPEAKING
BELGIUM, LUXEMBOURG,
SWITZERLAND & AFRICA/
FRENCH WEST INDIES/
MIDDLE EAST – Paris
EBSCO Information Services SAS
Luc Prudhon, General Manager
33 1 69 10 47 00
Fax +33 (0)1 40 96 45 70
E-mail: info@fr.ebsco.com
TURKEY – Ankara
Nilüfer Saros, Office Manager
90-312-441 73 44
Fax 90-312-441 73 47
E-mail: ebscotr@ebsco.com
CZECH REPUBLIC/SLOVAKIA –
Prague
Cary Bruce, General Manager
420-2-72 762 766
Fax 420-2-72 762 766
E-mail: info.cr@ebsco.com
POLAND/LATVIA/LITHUANIA –
Warsaw
EBSCO-IPS Information Services
Sp. z.o.o.
Cary Bruce, General Manager
48 22 7451105
Fax 48 22 6961773
E-mail: polska@ebsco.com
SOUTHERN AFRICA –
Blackheath Randburg, South Africa
Ian Middleton, General Manager
27-11-678-4416
Fax 27-11-678-4464
E-mail: mailsa@ebsco.com
AUSTRALASIAN, CENTRAL ASIAN
& LATIN AMERICAN DIVISION
HEADQUARTERS –
Birmingham, AL USA
Sid McNeal Jr., General Manager
(205) 995-1596
Fax (205) 991-1449
E-mail: ebintl@ebsco.com
MEXICO – Mexico, D.F.
EBSCO MEXICO, INC. S.A. DE C.V.
Oscar Saavedra, General Manager
52 55 5273 1585
Fax 52 55 5273 5550
E-mail: eismexico@ebsco.com
BRASIL – Rio de Janeiro
EBSCO BRASIL LTDA.
Humberto Moll, General Manager
55-21-2224-0190
Fax 55-21-2224-0190
E-mail: ebsco@ebsco.com.br
AUSTRALIA – North Sydney
EBSCO Australia Subscription Services
Peter Smith, General Manager
61-2-9922-5600
Fax 61-2-9922-6659
E-mail: ess-au@ebsco.com
AUSTRALIA – Melbourne
EBSCO Australia Subscription Services
Peter Smith, General Manager
61-3-9276-1788
Fax 61-3-9421-6796
E-mail: ess-au@ebsco.com
NEW ZEALAND –
Newmarket, Auckland
EBSCO NZ Ltd.
Peter Smith, General Manager
64-9-524-8119
Toll-free: 0508-327-261
Fax 64-9-524-8067
E-mail: essnz@ebsco.com
MALAYSIA/SINGAPORE/
INDONESIA/PHILIPPINES/
THAILAND –
Penang, Malaysia
John DeVette, Asia General Manager
60-4-226-4720
Fax 60-4-226-3509
E-mail: jdevette@ebsco.com
HONG KONG/TAIWAN – Taipei
Rachel Yee, General Manager
886-2-2391-1488
Fax 886-2-2391-1486
E-mail: taiwan@ebsco.com
KOREA – Seoul
EBSCO Korea, Inc.
Sungdae Ahn, General Manager
82-2-598-2571
Fax 82-2-817-2571
E-mail: korea@ebsco.com
JAPAN – Tokyo
John DeVette, General Manager
81-(0)3-5377-6377
Fax 81-3-5377-6379
E-mail: japan@ebsco.com
CHINA – Beijing
EBSCO China
Huang Gang, Asst. General Manager
400-650-9932
+86-10-8493-8140 / 1 / 2
Fax: +86-10-8493-8307
E-mail: service@ebsco.com.cn
EBSCO representatives are also
located in:
Bangkok, Thailand
Beirut, Lebanon
Buenos Aires, Argentina
Kiev, Ukraine
Lagos, Nigeria
Lima, Peru
Manila, Philippines
Moscow, Russia
New Delhi, India
San Juan, Puerto Rico
Bogota D.C., Colombia
Santiago, Chile
Shanghai, China
Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
Singapore, Republic of Singapore
Sofia, Bulgaria
Zagreb, Croatia
© EBSCO Industries, Inc.
Printed in the U.S.A. (0408)
EBS- 2750
20321
w w w. e b s c o . c o m